Comparison of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation
Key result
120-J rectilinear biphasic shocks improve first-shock defibrillation efficacy by ~6% versus 200-J monophasic shocks.
- P=0.05
- n=184
Why the study?
Does a 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock improve first-shock efficacy compared to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic shock in patients undergoing transthoracic ventricular defibrillation?
Population
184 patients who underwent transthoracic ventricular defibrillation
Comparison
120-J rectilinear biphasic shock vs 200-J damped sine wave monophasic shock
Design
RCT, randomized
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Supports lower-energy rectilinear biphasic shocks for initial transthoracic defibrillation; confirms waveform superiority in randomized evidence.
Study Design
Type
RCT (n=184)
Randomization
randomized
Multicenter
Yes
Structured PICO
Does a 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock improve first-shock efficacy compared to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic shock in patients undergoing transthoracic ventricular defibrillation?
P
Population
184 patients who underwent transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.
I
Intervention
120-J rectilinear biphasic shock
C
Comparator
200-J damped sine wave monophasic shock
O
Outcome
First-shock efficacy
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 99% vs 93%
p-value: p=0.05
A 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock provides superior first-shock efficacy for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation compared to a 200-J monophasic shock, particularly in patients with high transthoracic impedance, while requiring significantly less current.
Cite This Study
Mittal et al. (1999) conducted an RCT in ventricular defibrillation (n=184). Rectilinear biphasic shock vs. 200-J damped sine wave monophasic shock was evaluated on First-shock efficacy (p=0.05). A 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock demonstrated superior first-shock efficacy compared with a 200-J monophasic shock for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation (99% vs. 93%, p=0.05).